The whole discussion is fascinating. Glenn Loury is a more-or-less centrist with proclivities toward both Left and Right while Bessner, his main interlocutor, is staunchly Left. They make for interesting conversation partners.
While the whole conversation is worthwhile, I was struck by their remarks about Israel as a nation-state at 53:34. The central point is that the modern nation-state was ethnically conceived as a state for a single nation (ethnos). Thus the idea of a two state solution for Israel and Palestine runs counter to the founding logic of the modern nation. Now that they've pointed this out, it's obvious. But I hadn't thought of it before.
At one point in the conversation, I forget just where, Bessner mentions what the American nation did with the people they found already living on the continent. That's a complicated story. One impulse, only partially successful, was to wipe them out. Those that weren't wiped out, however, were afforded the opportunity of living on reservations. Those reservations are interesting political constructions. The Indians living on them are full citizens of the United States. But the reservations do have some (small) autonomy, enough to support gambling casinos, for example. It's a peculiar arrangement.
YouTube:
1,499 views Aug 23, 2025
Support The Glenn Show at https://glennloury.substack.com
Go to https://ground.news/glennshow to spot media bias and become a smarter news consumer. Subscribe through my link for 40% off unlimited access this month.
This episode was originally recorded for Danny and Derek's podcast American Prestige and cross posted here. Subscribe to American Prestige at https://americanprestige.supportingca...
Order Glenn's new book, Self-Censorship, here or where you get your books:
0:00 The origins of Self-Censorship
4:11 Black and conservative in Reagan’s America
8:30 The social science hall of fame
12:45 Ground News ad
14:42 Jews, assimilation, and the quantitative revolution
19:53 Human universalism vs. ethno-national particularity
23:39 Historicizing “the Jew”
25:44 Danny: Larry Summers can’t see outside his own neoliberal paradigm
29:47 Are we entering a period of, as Marx wrote, “mutual ruin”?
32:43 Is capitalism leading us toward nuclear war?
39:15 What the Manhattan Institute incident taught Glenn about his own book
44:59 Glenn: “I’m rethinking everything”
48:37 Is the right reverting to a pre-New Deal political paradigm?
53:34 Is Israel a reversion to an Early Modern model of nation-building?
1:00:04 American Jews’s role in Israel’s creation and perpetuation
1:05:01 Why Glenn previously censored himself on Gaza
1:11:27 Glenn: So far, I’m disappointed in Trump
Glenn Loury (Brown University, Hoover Institution, Self-Censorship), Daniel Bessner (University of Washington, American Prestige, Democracy in Exile), and Derek Davison (American Prestige, Foreign Exchanges). Recorded August 6, 2025.
Why Bibi Always Needs More War | Robert Wright & Alex Gibney
0:00 Teaser
0:32 The time Alex blocked everyone's view of Jennifer Aniston
4:42 How Alex acquired the Bibi interrogation tapes
9:02 What the Bibi Files suggest about the Gaza war
12:00 Bibi's bribes
16:42 Bibi-Trump parallels
27:05 Barriers to getting the movie distributed (and where to watch it)
42:12 Heading to Overtime (and Bob’s and Alex's unfinished film)
Discussed in Overtime:
Great war documentaries.
Alex's favorite documentarians.
Theories of Elon Musk.
The state of documentary filmmaking today.
Wendy Schmidt and Jigsaw Productions.
Robert Wright (Nonzero, The Evolution of God, Why Buddhism Is True) and Alex Gibney (Going Clear, Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room, Taxi to the Dark Side). Recorded June 10, 2025.
President Trump basked as Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel praised his “willingness to think outside the box.” But when it came to Gaza, Mr. Trump’s thinking on Tuesday was so far outside the box that it was not clear he even knew there was a box.
Mr. Trump’s announcement that he intends to seize control of Gaza, displace the Palestinian population and turn the coastal enclave into “the Riviera of the Middle East” was the kind of thing he might have said to get a rise on “The Howard Stern Show” a decade or two ago. Provocative, intriguing, outlandish, outrageous — and not at all presidential.
The idea built on Trump during the day:
Indeed, it seemed to be an idea that grew by the hour as the day went on. In the morning, before Mr. Netanyahu arrived at the White House to meet with Mr. Trump, aides to the president told reporters that it would take 15 years or more to rebuild Gaza after the destructive war between Israel and Hamas and that it would require working with partners in the region to find Palestinians a place to live temporarily.
By the afternoon, as he signed some executive orders, Mr. Trump told reporters that Palestinians would have “no alternative” but to move out of Gaza because it was just “a demolition site.” A little later, he welcomed Mr. Netanyahu to the Oval Office and went even further, saying he wanted “all of them” to leave and that Gazans should “be thrilled” to live someplace better that he expected Egypt and Jordan to provide.
Then at a formal news conference with Mr. Netanyahu in the East Room on Tuesday evening, he took it the final step, declaring not just that Palestinians should leave but that “the U.S. will take over the Gaza Strip” and rebuild it into a prosperous economic destination.
This was not a temporary takeover, but “a long-term ownership position” and he made clear that he had no intention of turning Gaza back over to the Palestinians but would make it a place “not for a specific group of people but for everybody.”
What that meant exactly, he did not say. Nor did he say how this would be accomplished. Even he seemed to grasp how wild the whole thing sounded. “I don’t mean to be cute, I don’t mean to be a wise guy,” he said at one point. “But the Riviera of the Middle East!”
As you might imagine, the idea was not greeted with universal joy and hosannas:
Others saw nothing cute or wise about what amounted to “ethnic cleansing by another name,” as Senator Chris Van Hollen, Democrat of Maryland, put it.
“The notion that the United States is going to take over Gaza, including with the deployment of U.S. troops, isn’t just extreme, it’s completely detached from reality,” said Halie Soifer, chief executive of the Jewish Democratic Council of America. “In what world is this happening?”
Khaled Elgindy, a visiting scholar at Georgetown University’s Center for Contemporary Arab Studies, said Mr. Trump’s comments were “truly bizarre and incoherent,” raising more questions than answers.
But, just for the sheer hell of it, let’s set those reservations aside, I
mean, the idea of forcibly relocating the Palestinians, it’s, it’s,...it’s
batshit bonkers. But let’s suspend reality for a minute or three.
World Island?
What could we do with a Riviera of the Middle East? Consider the idea my friend Zeal proposed, and pursued for a number of years (and I helped him):
He proposed to transform Governors Island, a 172 acre former Coast Guard base in New York Harbor, into World Island, which he described as a “permanent world’s fair for a world that’s permanently fair”. Think of it as a combination of the best features of the United Nations, Disney World, a kid’s rumpus room, the trading floor at the Chicago Board of Trade, the Bibliothèque nationale de France, and the Japanese exhibit at the 1893 World’s Fair in Chicago. It would cost $25 billion or so and be planted with orchids. Why orchids? Beauty aside, they’re an early warning system for climate change, when the orchids go, we’re not going to be far behind.
I met Zeal in his office a couple days later and he explained.
Governors Island had been a Coast Guard base until the end of the century. Senator Moynihan convinced the government to was sell the island to GIPEC (Governors Island Preservation and Education Corporation), jointly owned by New York State and New York City. GIPEC took possession for a couple dollars rather than a price at market rate. Can you imagine the market rate for a 172 acres of developable property in New York Harbor?
Gaza is considerably larger than 172 acres, but then what Zeal envisioned for World Island was a bit much for that site. But in Gaza, in Gaza there’d be room. And, when you consider the thousands of years of conflict that has bedeviled that land, it would be the perfect place to realize Zeal’s vision. Here’s the executive summary of the proposal we submitted to GIPEC: Governors Island as a World Resource Center. Here’s slide presentation that you can scroll through.
What will actually happen? Who knows? I certainly don’t, and neither does Donald Trump. But you should read Tyler Cowen’s recent post: Trumpian policy as cultural policy. It’s quite provocative. Here’s a bit:
The Trump administration has issued a blizzard of Executive Orders, and set many other potential changes in the works. They might rename Dulles Airport (can you guess to what?). A bill has been introduced to add you-know-who to Mount Rushmore. There is DOGE, and the ongoing attempt to reshape federal employment. [...]
Imagine you hold a vision where the (partial) decline of America largely is about culture. After all, we have more people and more natural resources than ever before. Our top achievements remain impressive. But is the overall culture of the people in such great shape? The culture of government and public service? Interest in our religious organizations? The quality of local government in many states? You don’t have to be a diehard Trumper to have some serious reservations on such questions.
We also see countries, such as China, that have screwed-up policies but have grown a lot, in large part because of a pro-business, pro-learning, pro-work culture. Latin America, in contrast, did lots of policy reforms but still is somewhat stagnant.
OK, so how might you fix the culture of America? You want to tell everyone that America comes first. That America should be more masculine and less soft. That we need to build. That we should “own the libs.” I could go on with more examples and details, but this part of it you already get.
So imagine you started a political revolution and asked the simple question “does this policy change reinforce or overturn our basic cultural messages?” Every time the policy or policy debate pushes culture in what you think is the right direction, just do it. Do it in the view that the cultural factors will, over some time horizon, surpass everything else in import.
Simply pass or announce or promise such policies. Do not worry about any other constraints.
You don’t even have to do them!
After this that and the other:
To be clear, this hypothesis does not not not require any kind of cohesive elite planning the whole strategy (though there are elites planning significant parts of what Trump is doing). It suffices to have a) conflicting interest groups, b) competition for Trump’s attention, and c) Trump believing cultural issues are super-important, as he seems to. There then results a spontaneous order, in which the visible strategy looks just like someone intended exactly this as a concrete plan.
Dana, the kids, and I got back to the US last week after a month spent in England and then Israel. We decided to visit Israel because … uhh, we heard there’s never been a better time. [...]
Besides supporting our friends and relatives, though, I wanted to see the post-October-7 reality for myself, rather than just spending hours per day reading about it on social media. I wanted to form my own impression of the mood in Israel: fiercely determined? angry? hopeless? just carrying on like normal?
Anyway, in two meeting-packed weeks, mostly in Tel Aviv but also in Jerusalem, Haifa, and Be’er Sheva, I saw stuff that could support any of those narratives. A lot was as I’d expected, but not everything. [...]
(2) Having said that, the morning after we landed, truthfully, the first thing that leapt out at me wasn’t anything to do with October 7, hostages, or Gaza. It was the sheer number of children playing outside, in any direction you looked. Full, noisy playgrounds on block after block. It’s one thing to know intellectually that Israel has by far the highest birthrate of any Western country, another to see it for yourself. The typical secular family probably has three kids; the typical Orthodox family has more. (The Arab population is of course also growing rapidly, both in Israel and in the West Bank and Gaza.) New apartment construction is everywhere you look in Tel Aviv, despite building delays caused by the war. And it all seems perfectly normal … unless you’ve lived your whole life in environments where 0.8 or 1.2 children per couple is the norm. [...]
(4) But nu, what did our Israeli friends say about the war? Of course it’s a biased sample, because our friends are mostly left-wing academics and tech workers. But, at risk of overgeneralizing: they’re unhappy. Very, very unhappy. As for Bibi and his far-right yes-men? Our friends’ rage at them was truly a sight to behold. American progressives are, like, mildly irked by Trump in comparison. Yes, our friends blame Bibi for the massive security and intelligence failures that allowed October 7 to happen. They blame him for dragging out the war to stave off elections. They blame him for empowering the contemptible Ben-Gvir and Smotrich. They blame him for his failure to bring back the remaining hostages. Most of all, they blame him for refusing even to meet with the hostage families, and more broadly, for evading responsibility for all that he did wrong, while arrogating credit for any victories (like the rescue of Noa Argamani).
(5) One Israeli friend offered to take me along to the giant anti-Bibi rally that now happens every Saturday night in Azrieli Center in Tel Aviv. (She added that, if I left before 9pm, it would reduce the chances of the police arresting me.) As the intrepid blogger-investigator I am, of course I agreed.
While many of the protesters simply called for new elections to replace Netanyahu (a cause that I 3000% support), others went further, demanding a deal to free the hostages and an immediate end to the war (even if, as they understood, that would leave Hamas in power).
Watching the protesters, smelling their pot smoke that filled the air, I was seized by a thought: these Israeli leftists actually see eye-to-eye with the anti-Israel American leftists on a huge number of issues. In a different world, they could be marching together as allies. Except, of course, for one giant difference: namely, the Tel Aviv protesters are proudly waving Israeli flags (sometimes modified to add anti-Bibi images, or to depict the Star of David “crying”), rather than burning or stomping on those flags. They’re marching to save the Israel that they know and remember, rather than to destroy it. [...]
(11) After my two-week investigation, what grand insight can I offer about Israel’s future? Not much, but maybe this: I think we can definitively rule out the scenario where Israel, having been battered by October 7, and bracing itself to be battered worse by Hezbollah, just sort of … withers away and disappears. Yes, Israel might get hotter, more crowded, more dangerous, more right-wing, and more Orthodox. But it will stay right where it is, unless and until its enemies destroy it in a cataclysmic war. You can’t scare people away, break their will, if they believe they have nowhere else on the planet to go. You can only kill them or else live next to them in peace, as the UN proposed in 1947 and as Oslo proposed in the 1990s. May we live to see peace.
Peter Baker and Michael Crowley, Providing Both Bombs and Food, Biden Puts Himself in the Middle of Gaza’s War, NYTimes, Mar. 9, 2024.
From the skies over Gaza these days fall American bombs and American food pallets, delivering death and life at the same time and illustrating President Biden’s elusive effort to find balance in an unbalanced Middle East war.
The president’s decision to authorize airdrops and the construction of a temporary port to deliver desperately needed humanitarian aid to Gaza has highlighted the tensions in his policy as he continues to support the provision of U.S. weaponry for Israel’s military operation against Hamas without condition.
The United States finds itself on both sides of the war in a way, arming the Israelis while trying to care for those hurt as a result. Mr. Biden has grown increasingly frustrated as Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel defies his pleas to do more to protect civilians in Gaza, and the president went further in expressing that exasperation during and after his State of the Union address this past week. But Mr. Biden remains opposed to cutting off munitions or leveraging them to influence the fighting.
“You can’t have a policy of giving aid and giving Israel the weapons to bomb the food trucks at the same time,” Representative Ro Khanna, Democrat of California, said in an interview the day after the speech. “There is inherent contradiction in that. And I think the administration needs to match the genuine empathy and moral concern that came out last night for Palestinian civilian lives with real accountability for Netanyahu and the extreme right-wing government there.”
1:51 How Israelis think about civilian casualties in Gaza
20:47 Is the war spawning a new generation of terrorists?
34:39 Explaining versus justifying bad behavior
49:39 Can Hamas and other extremist groups be moderated?
1:03:12 Is the world biased against Israel?
1:14:45 Cognitive biases that inflame tribal tensions
1:26:09 The “river to the sea” Rorschach test
1:41:03 On the precipice of World War III?
In listening to this conversation I was reminded of a recent post, Jews and the historical imaginary of half the world’s peoples, where I was talking about the fact that Jews were banned from England between 1290 and sometime late in the 16th century and yet anti-Semitism flourished in that period.
The fact that there were no Jews in Shakespeare’s England was thus no impediment to writing a play about a Jew, one who was a moneylender. Shakespeare had the cultural imaginary of Jews to draw upon and, in so doing, he gave it new force and energy. His moneylender was named “Shylock,” a name which has since served as a token and touchstone for usury.
Jews began returning to England in the middle of the seventeenth century, during the rule of Oliver Cromwell.
As for the Jews in the cultural imaginary, that exploded in Germany and Austria in the middle of the previous century. Those reverberations remain with us to this day.
This is a tremendous read. De Villepin may have been the best President France never had. He is always truly running rings around any media interlocutor. In an intellectually respectable way, not a cheap way.#Gazahttps://t.co/g8SXt1y9iZ
Absolutely masterful interview on Gaza of Dominique De Villepin, former Prime Minister of France, who famously led France's opposition to the Iraq war and who, IMHO is the best diplomat the West has produced in decades.
This is so important, so incredibly well argued, that I decided to translate it in full:
"Hamas has set a trap for us, and this trap is one of maximum horror, of maximum cruelty. And so there's a risk of an escalation in militarism, of more military interventions, as if we could with armies solve a problem as serious as the Palestinian question.
There's also a second major trap, which is that of Occidentalism. We find ourselves trapped, with Israel, in this western bloc which today is being challenged by most of the international community.
[Presenter: What is Occidentalism?]
Occidentalism is the idea that the West, which for 5 centuries managed the world's affairs, will be able to quietly continue to do so. And we can clearly see, even in the debates of the French political class, that there is the idea that, faced with what is currently happening in the Middle East, we must continue the fight even more, towards what might resemble a religious or a civilizational war. That is to say, to isolate ourselves even more on the international stage.
This is not the way, especially since there's a third trap, which is that of moralism. And here we have in a way the proof, through what is happening in Ukraine and what is happening in the Middle East, of this double standard that is denounced everywhere in the world, including in recent weeks when I travel to Africa, the Middle East, or Latin America. The criticism is always the same: look at how civilian populations are treated in Gaza, you denounce what happened in Ukraine, and you are very timid in the face of the tragedy unfolding in Gaza.
Consider international law, the second criticism that is made by the global south. We sanction Russia when it aggresses Ukraine, we sanction Russia when it doesn't respect the resolutions of the United Nations, and it's been 70 years that the resolutions of the United Nations have been voted in vain and that Israel doesn't respect them.
[Presenter: Do you believe that the Westerners are currently guilty of hubris?]
Westerners must open their eyes to the extent of the historical drama unfolding before us to find the right answers.
[Presenter: What is the historical drama? I mean, we're talking about the tragedy of October 7th first and foremost, right?]
Of course, there are these horrors happening, but the way to respond to them is crucial. Are we going to kill the future by finding the wrong answers...
[Presenter: Kill the future?]
Kill the future, yes! Why?
[Presenter: But who is killing whom?]
You are in a game of causes and effects. Faced with the tragedy of history, one cannot take this 'chain of causality' analytical grid, simply because if you do you can't escape from it. Once we understand that there is a trap, once we realize that behind this trap there has also been a change in the Middle East regarding the Palestinian issue... The situation today is profoundly different [from what it was in the past]. The Palestinian cause was a political and secular cause. Today we are faced with an Islamist cause, led by Hamas. Obviously, this kind of cause is absolute and allows no form of negotiation. On the Israeli side, there has also been a development. Zionism was secular and political, championed by Theodor Herzl in the late 19th century. It has largely become messianic, biblical today. This means that they too do not want to compromise, and everything that the far-right Israeli government does, continuing to encourage colonization, obviously makes things worse, including since October 7th. So in this context, understand that we are already in this region facing a problem that seems profoundly insoluble.
Added to this is the hardening of states. Diplomatically, look at the statements of the King of Jordan, they are not the same as six months ago. Look at the statements of Erdogan in Turkey.
[Presenter: Precisely, these are extremely harsh statements...]
Extremely worrying. Why? Because if the Palestinian cause, the Palestinian issue, hasn't been brought to the forefront, hasn't been put on stage [for a while], and if most of the youth today in Europe have often never even heard of it, it remains for the Arab peoples the mother of all battles. All the progress made towards an attempt to stabilize the Middle East, where one could believe...
[Presenter: Yes, but whose fault is it? I have a hard time following you, is it Hamas's fault?]
But Ms. Malherbe, I am trained as a diplomat. The question of fault will be addressed by historians and philosophers.
[Presenter: But you can't remain neutral, it's difficult, it's complicated, isn't it?]
I am not neutral, I am in action. I am simply telling you that every day that passes, we can ensure that this horrific cycle stops... that's why I speak of a trap and that's why it's so important to know what response we are going to give. We stand alone before history today. And we do not treat this new world the way we currently do, knowing that today we are no longer in a position of strength, we are not able to manage on our own, as the world's policemen.
[Presenter: So what do we do?]
Exactly, what should we do? This is where it is essential not to cut off anyone on the international stage.
[Presenter: Including the Russians?]
Everyone.
[Presenter: Everyone? Should we ask the Russians for help?]
I'm not saying we should ask the Russians for help. I'm saying: if the Russians can contribute by calming some factions in this region, then it will be a step in the right direction.
[Presenter: How can we proportionally respond to barbarism? It's no longer army against army.]
But listen, Appolline de Malherbe, the civilian populations that are dying in Gaza, don't they exist? So because horror was committed on one side, horror must be committed on the other?
[Presenter: Do we indeed need to equate the two?]
No, it's you who are doing that. I'm not saying I equate the faults. I try to take into account what a large part of humanity thinks. There is certainly a realistic objective to pursue, which is to eradicate the Hamas leaders who committed this horror. And not to confuse the Palestinians with Hamas, that's a realistic goal.
The second thing is a targeted response. Let's define realistic political objectives. And the third thing is a combined response. Because there is no effective use of force without a political strategy. We are not in 1973 or in 1967. There are things no army in the world knows how to do, which is to win in an asymmetrical battle against terrorists. The war on terror has never been won anywhere. And it instead triggers extremely dramatic misdeeds, cycles, and escalations. If America lost in Afghanistan, if America lost in Iraq, if we lost in the Sahel, it's because it's a battle that can't be won simply, it's not like you have a hammer that strikes a nail and the problem is solved. So we need to mobilize the international community, get out of this Western entrapment in which we are.
[Presenter: But when Emmanuel Macron talks about an international coalition…]
Yes, and what was the response?
[Presenter: None.]
Exactly. We need a political perspective, and this is challenging because the two-state solution has been removed from the Israeli political and diplomatic program. Israel needs to understand that for a country with a territory of 20,000 square kilometers, a population of 9 million inhabitants, facing 1.5 billion people... Peoples have never forgotten that the Palestinian cause and the injustice done to the Palestinians was a significant source of mobilization. We must consider this situation, and I believe it is essential to help Israel, to guide... some say impose, but I think it's better to convince, to move in this direction. The challenge is that there is no interlocutor today, neither on the Israeli side nor the Palestinian side. We need to bring out interlocutors.
[Presenter: It's not for us to choose who will be the leaders of Palestine.]
The Israeli policy over recent years did not necessarily want to cultivate a Palestinian leadership... Many are in prison, and Israel's interest - because I repeat: it was not in their program or in Israel's interest at the time, or so they thought - was instead to divide the Palestinians and ensure that the Palestinian question fades. This Palestinian question will not fade. And so we must address it and find an answer. This is where we need courage. The use of force is a dead end. The moral condemnation of what Hamas did - and there's no "but" in my words regarding the moral condemnation of this horror - must not prevent us from moving forward politically and diplomatically in an enlightened manner. The law of retaliation is a never-ending cycle.
[Presenter: The "eye for an eye, tooth for tooth".]
Yes. That's why the political response must be defended by us. Israel has a right to self-defense, but this right cannot be indiscriminate vengeance. And there cannot be collective responsibility of the Palestinian people for the actions of a terrorist minority from Hamas.
When you get into this cycle of finding faults, one side's memories clash with the other's. Some will juxtapose Israel's memories with the memories of the Nakba, the 1948 catastrophe, which is a disaster that the Palestinians still experience every day. So you can't break these cycles. We must have the strength, of course, to understand and denounce what happened, and from this standpoint, there's no doubt about our position. But we must also have the courage, and that's what diplomacy is... diplomacy is about being able to believe that there is light at the end of the tunnel. And that's the cunning of history; when you're at the bottom, something can happen that gives hope. After the 1973 war, who would have thought that before the end of the decade, Egypt would sign a peace treaty with Israel?
The debate shouldn't be about rhetoric or word choice. The debate today is about action; we must act. And when you think about action, there are two options. Either it's war, war, war. Or it's about trying to move towards peace, and I'll say it again, it's in Israel's interest. It's in Israel's interest!"
* * * * *
Here is the interview. Set the auto-generated subtitles to whatever language you wish.
The ostensible reason is Israel’s retaliation for Hamas’ Oct. 4 assault. I wonder, though. I suspect something more complex is going on. This is from today’s NYTimes:
But it’s not just Hollywood.
While the effect is pronounced in Hollywood, where there is a large Jewish presence, the entirety of liberal America has been similarly convulsed. On Capitol Hill, across college campuses and among progressive activist groups and philanthropies, a raw divide has emerged. On one side, there is ardent support for Israel. On the other is an energized faction who view the Palestinian cause as an extension of the racial and social justice movements that swept through the United States in the summer of 2020. And there are others, including Jewish people, calling for a cease-fire.
What’s going on? Let me ramble a bit.
When I look at the situation in-and-around Israel, it makes my head ache. It’s so complicated. If I were to live in the Middle East, it would be in Israel because it’s closest to my values. It seems to be a functioning democracy.
But I see the settlements on the West Bank, and I don’t like it. It’s wrong, it’s going to lead to trouble, I think. I don’t like the blockage of Gaza. Yes, I understand there’s a protective impulse, there needs to be a protective impulse. I don’t like Netanyahu and his government. There’s a lot not to like going on in Israel.
Then Hamas goes on a rampage on October 7. That’s wrong! I don’t have to think about it, it’s just wrong. Upon further reflection, still, and taking into account Israel’s retaliation (so far), it’s wrong. But I can see, that is, I am imagining that, for others, the retaliation tipped them the other way. They realize the situation is complicated, as do I, but for some reason or another, they tip the other way.
Why? Who knows? I don’t. But I don’t think it’s simply about Israel and Palestine and the Middle East. Remember, English people nurtured their antisemitism for three and a half centuries (between 1290 and the mid-17th century) when there were no Jews in England. That antisemitism was about the English psycho-cultural economy, not about Jews. There’s always that ethno-psychic internal component to these things. I suspect that this surprising (at least to some of us) eruption of antisemitism is more about that internal-component than it is about external events.
Let’s return to that New York Times article. Here’s how it ends:
And there are ways in which Hollywood’s Jewish community has recently begun to feel taken for granted.
Bitter feelings linger, for instance, over the Academy Museum of Motion Pictures. The museum opened in late 2021 with a focus on diversity and inclusion; exhibits highlighted the often-overlooked contributions that women and people of color made to the art form. But the Jewish immigrants who founded the studio system were barely mentioned. After complaints, including from Haim Saban, the Israeli-American media entrepreneur who had donated $50 million to the museum, curators scrambled to put together a new permanent exhibition on the Jewish founders. It has not yet opened.
In part because Jewish immigrants founded Hollywood as a way to escape the antisemitism they faced in more established industries, this current moment of agitation feels profound.
In my freshman year at Johns Hopkins I read an essay that Talcott Parsons published in 1947, “Certain Primary Sources of Aggression in the Social Structure of the Western World”. It’s been on my mind ever since and I’ve blogged about it I don’t know how many times, e.g. TO WAR! Part 1: War and America's National Psyche. Parsons argued that Western child-rearing practices generate a great deal of insecurity and anxiety at the core of personality structure. This creates an adult who has a great deal of trouble dealing with aggression and is prone to scapegoating. Inevitably, there are lots of aggressive impulses which cannot be followed out. They must be repressed. Ethnic scapegoating is one way to relieve the pressure of this repressed aggression. That, Parsons argued, is why the Western world is flush with nationalistic and ethnic antipathy. I suspect, in fact, that this dynamic is inherent in nationalism as a psycho-cultural phenomenon.
A full decade before Parsons, John Dollard published Caste and Class in a Southern Town, which “redirected the study of southern race relations in general and lynching in particular” by asking a simple question: Why do people need racism? The question implies that mistaken beliefs about others are symptoms of racism, not its cause. Racism has some useful function in the individual or collective lives of racists. What function could that be? Dollard’s answer was, in effect, to keep the peace.
In a post from 2013, Blacks, Blues, and Soul Sickness: Lynching and Racism in the USofA, I quote him making an argument the anticipates Parsons’ 1947 argument. Dollard observes that social life is often frustrating, generating aggressive impulses which cannot be always be satisfied. In Dollard’s view this leads to
a generalized or “free-floating” aggression . . . [that] can be thought of as a tendency to kick, hit, scorn or derogate someone or something if one could only find out what. A second necessity is that of a permissive social pattern. This must exist in order to lift the in-group taboos on hostility. The permissive pattern isolates a group within the society which may be disliked. Usually it is a defenseless group. . . The third essential in race prejudice is that the object must be uniformly identifiable. [pp. 445-446]
In other words, white racists are using blacks as scapegoats for the accumulated frustrations they experience in daily life. Aggressive impulses are being displaced from their real objects, which are appropriate targets, to substitute objects, toward whom one can act aggressively.
Then just yesterday I quoted Stephen Greenblatt on how the English nourished antisemitism from 1290 through to the mid-17th century, a period when there were no Jews at all in England. This anxiety, anger, resentment, and hatred thus had to originate entirely within the socio-cultural dynamics of English society. It had nothing at all to do with interaction with real Jews.
There’s an obvious pattern here. I could multiply examples. You’ll find some of them in the articles I’ve linked.
But the psychodynamic imagery of projection, which was at the heart of Parson’s rather convoluted psychoanalytic account is not helpful. It seems to imply that one sees or senses something within oneself, right here, picks it up and then tosses it, that is, projects it, to someone else, over there. The process is not that deliberate and self-conscious. It just happens.
It’s more like a failure to differentiate in the first place, a failure nurtured by various cultural practices, including rituals and stories. For it is through those kinds of practices that the negative affect becomes attributed to other people and other groups. Ultimately, we’ve got to go back to infancy, which is after all, where Freud started, where the infant is unable to differentiate between ego and alter. How do cultural mechanisms shape those interactions?
It's turtles all the way down, that is, interpersonal interaction. That’s what I struggled to conceptualize in the special case of music in my book on music, Beethoven’s Anvil: Music in Mind and Culture, “Part I: Collective Dynamics,” pp. 23-90. And I started where one must start, with the brain. What is going on in the brains of people while they’re interacting?
That question was just barely an empirical one when I wrote the book, but it had become (almost) empirical. I was able to cite some early work by Uri Hasson. That early work has blossomed into an extensive area of research crossing many disciplinary lines. You can find some of that word by searching my blog on the name “Hasson,” and the tags, “coupling” and “synchrony”.
Maybe it’s not (quite) half, perhaps a bit more. I don’t really know. But it’s a big chunk.
Historical imaginary? “Imaginary” as a noun showed up in the humanities sometime in the last half century or so when I wasn’t watching. Perhaps the usage can be traced back to Lacan? Anyhow, it’s something like the ongoing process and repository of fictive conceptualization that’s applied to events as they unfold and so shapes our apprehension of them. Historical? It just means that it stretches back in time.
The Israeli’s that Hamas slaughtered on October 7, 2023 were real people. But the slaughter has entanglements that stretch far beyond any real events in Israel and Palestine in the last 10, 20, 30, 50, or even 100 years. Those entanglements are anchored in that historical imaginary.
The reality of that historical imaginary was recently born to me as a mild shock while reading Stephen Greenblatt’s Will in the World: How Shakespeare Became Shakespeare. That shock came near the beginning of Chapter 9: “Slaughter at the Scaffold.” Greenblatt works his way around to Marlow’s The Jew of Malta and Shakespeare’s response, The Merchant of Venice. While Shylock is not the title character, he is the center of the play. With those two plays in mind, Greenblatt observes that neither Marlow or Shakespeare “is ever likely to encountered a Jew.”
“Really,” I thought, “Really?”
Greenblatt goes on to explain (p. 258):
...in 1290, two hundred years before the momentous expulsion from Spain, the entire Jewish community of England had been expelled and forbidden on pain of death to return. The act of expulsion, in the reign of Edward I, was unprecedented; England was the first nation in medieval Christendom to rid itself by law of its entire Jewish population. There was no precipitating crisis, as far as is known, no state of emergency, not even any public explanation. No jurist seems to have thought it necessary to justify the deportations; no chronicler bothered to record the official reasons. Perhaps no one, Jew or Christian, thought reasons needed to be given. For decades the Jewish population in England had been in desperate trouble: accused of Host desecration and the ritual murder of Christian children, hated as moneylenders, reviled as Christ killers, beaten and lynched by mobs whipped into anti-Jewish frenzy by the incendiary sermons of itinerant friars.
There were no Jews in England in the late 16th century:
Yet in fact the Jews left traces far more difficult to eradicate than people, and the English brooded on these traces – stories circulated, reiterated, and elaborated – continually and virtually obsessively.
That’s the historical imaginary at work. It has a life of its own. This particular stream of the imaginary is about Jews but has only a fortuitous and contingent relationship to real Jews.
The fact that there were no Jews in Shakespeare’s England was thus no impediment to writing a play about a Jew, one who was a moneylender. Shakespeare had the cultural imaginary of Jews to draw upon and, in so doing, he gave it new force and energy. His moneylender was named “Shylock,” a name which has since served as a token and touchstone for usury.
Jews began returning to England in the middle of the seventeenth century, during the rule of Oliver Cromwell.
As for the Jews in the cultural imaginary, that exploded in Germany and Austria in the middle of the previous century. Those reverberations remain with us to this day.
Will they never dissolve, dissipate, and deliquesce into numinous spirit?
